Thoughts on Blogging

Well the semester is over, and so possibly is this blog. When this class first began, I was excited about starting a blog because I had heard so much of blogging by that point that I figured it was a good time to start figuring out what it was all about. Well, 15 weeks later, i've come to the realization that blogging doesn't interest me. It's not because of the content that we've been writing about, far from it, it's the format. The internet is great because it enables users to create a medium filled with multiple formats, movies, pictures, music, sounds and of course text. For me, moving only the written word from a personal diary format to a multiuser platform is just screaming for extra content. I know these things are already possible to incorporate into your blog, but the majority of blogs that I have read fail to capitalize on this notion. Why can't blogs be more flashy, more exciting? Use something other than text to express your experiences as the same margins, indenting and style of the blog gets old really fast. Otherwise, I would have been just as happy turning in response sheets every week. Its cool to do what Scott McCloud did with his book and realize what we are learning by doing it is what we are talking about, but I almost wish that we had blogs as a special assignment for a limited time to see if we liked it over writing response sheets. I guess I just feel like blog space is really informal, but I feel weird writing in a sometimes formal manner in my blogs.

The one thing that really is nice about blogs is the use of hypertext. However, when reading others blogs (especially penny arcade, they do this a lot) people sometimes link a key word without describing what it is they are referencing it too, so the user is forced to open a new window to understand the rest of what follows in the blog. To some this is new and exciting, but to me it is a hassle. If im going to read a 250 word snippet, I want to read it quick, not spend time zipping around gathering information to put together, its 250 words for god sakes, let me understand what you're talking about and then link it so I can visit the site after I finish your blog. Sorry but this is just something that really annoys me sometimes.

Also, this project has made me understand that the internet is a great place for the individual to speak his mind. Blogging has proved this to me. But from the studies done through the readings, it seems that the same problems arise as with other popular mediums, where the most popular blogs get all the hits while the majority are left in the dust. Who is actually reading this blog outside of our class? Do I really want anybody else to read this? Maybe if I was writing these responses to a public audience, it would be more exciting, but since nobody outside of our class is following these readings, that option alienates a major facet of blogging. I guess this is what I found most disappointing, but also releaving at the same time.

Anyway, Im glad I had the experience, don't get me wrong. But I don't think I have the drive to begin a new blog about my own personal interests or anything like that, at least for the time being.

Smartly Stoopid

"World of Ends" was a nice read, but ultimately I felt it fell short due to lack of content. I liked and agreed with Searls and Weinberger's 10 bullet pointed list, but I wanted more to fill in their argument. For example, the point about adding value to the internet lowers its overall value; I see what they are trying to get at, but I wonder where these kinds of actions are taking place. Paying for webspace? Charging subscription fees for exclusive accounts? AIM? I'm not sure where they believe these power dynamics of bits are occurring. But overall, the notion that the internet is stupid and should stay that way is wonderful, as I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think it is going to stay that way. The Dot-Com boom was a huge successful failure, and since, many companies are a bit wary when it comes to digital commerce. But don't believe for a second that it won't be back in full force, because it will be. Imagine just ten years from now, as the pipes expand and make way for faster bit rate speeds, larger and more complex systems will no doubt arrive on your monitor. Either in the form of television, censorship or advertisements, the internet is not safe from the Network (as in the companies) invasion. And who ever said it would be? We're living in what I would say is the golden age of information. It's relatively cheap (or free), easy to find, easy to share and painless to digest because of the small doses in which you can receive it. I just cannot imagine things to stay this good forever, as someone wants to be making more money and will find a way to do so, no doubt information will be the key to this endeavor.

I also imagine the internet to get smart. Tracking IPs and essential connectivity information is already relatively easy to do. I don't see why not the government won't try to take measures (if they already haven't, I've heard about the new Dell PC's shipping with a "Chip" pre-installed that records everything typed on the keyboard and sends "keywords" to people monitoring terrorist activity...) to track us all, or even slap us with internet passports to keep us in line. You know they're just salivating at the thought of more censorship. The internet is right now more "real" than any other medium because of its complete lack of censorship (for now). You can find images, storys and thoughts here that you could NEVER find on any television station, newspaper or film. Its freedom at its finest. But as our government loves to promote, "freedom isn't free" (god I hate that quote) and expect to be PAYING for FALSE information in the not too distant future...

Microsoft likes Micropayments

Well this is something that goes back to a few weeks ago when we read Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics, but I wanted to comment on it now since some new information was brought to my attention. The guys over at Penny Arcade have recently noted their opinions on the release of the upcoming Xbox 360 (the next generation of the Xbox videogame platform) and in one of their notes they mention a conversation with Scott McCloud over micro vs. macro payments. What was brought to my attention is that Microsoft (the creator of Xbox) has created a fully functional micropayment system for the Xbox online software where subscribers can pay small sums of money through their systems to receive extra content for the games they have already bought (or actual games themselves). To my knowledge, this is the first time micropayments have been used in conjunction with such a large, already installed user base. This then could be the beginning of the future of micropayment systems, as I am positive if Microsoft pulls this off well, many other companies are going to take notice.

As we have recently discussed, Pirating is a sticky situation in the new world of information based commerce, as it is easy to do and because it is indirect, not as morally objectionable as say, shoplifting or robbery. Thus, many large companies who try to protect their IPs are at a loss, as tracking each and every pirate and handing them a punishment that fits their exact crime is pretty much impossible. So how does one combat this issue? I believe micropayment systems could be very beneficial to finding the solution. The problem really lies within the fact that many people find paying chunklets (haha) of cash for bytes sent to your computer is not worth it. Not having a tangible object to hold creates a sense of unimportance that makes the product seem not worth the sum paid. But what about paying, oh lets say less than 50 cents, for pieces of an overall product. For the sake of this argument, let’s use games. The next generation of games are going to cost $60 a pop, $10 more than current gen games. There are also a lot of games coming out and many people don't have the time or money to shell out for every experience. But what if they were able to pay a small sum of money to experience a small piece of the game, maybe a single level with a single character to play as. If they like the experience, they can throw out another small sum of money to purchase the next level and continue the game bit by bit (no pun intended) or if they really like it, just pay the full amount and experience the whole product. I feel this could combat some of the piracy issues that currently plague the media entertainment world. I just hope Microsoft has a good plan to push their micropayment system into the mainstream market.

The Full Prince Charles

So capitalist society is nothing but a bunch of Zombies and Vampires slowly eating away at humanity only because of the fact that technology has enabled this horde of monsters to enter our world and tear it apart while building it up at the same time and the only way to escape this is to seclude yourself in a technology laiden city and detonate a massive EMP bomb that will destory all remenants of connectivity, but not all of technology as your glasses won't be effected and if you really want to escape it all, killing yourself won't do a damn thing because our lives are run by being in debt to society and working off to be accepted but that can never happen, so you need to get skinned alive and gutted and attached to a living woman's uterus where you feed off of her like the parasite you always were, but in the end that doesn't matter at all anyway because you're right back at the beginning, a shambling zombie, going to the mall to eat some brains and grab a non-fat peppermint mocha latte with an extra shot to keep you going to pay off more debt and get your ass handed to you thanks to connectivity? Sweet!

But seriously, while Shaviro's claims are quite interesting and relavent, I never thought I would get tired of being referred to as either a zombie or a vampire. Kinda Matrixy, huh? I get his metaphors for the ways in which everyone is fucked through the current system and because of connectivity, but I wonder if separating everything into two catagories (Zombies or Vampires) is a little harsh. Shaviro also should just team up with Jeter to write a Noir Deux, because I feel like i'm pretty much reading Noir through this book. Though some excellent satire comes from Noir and I am most definately going to give it a read after we finish Connected. As much as I enjoy being "connected" I can't help but also enjoy taking the other side as Shaviro seems to love to do. He's convincing, witty and creative with his commentary and I like being able to see things from the otherside when the otherside isn't some lame anti-tech person who knows absolutly nothing about technology whatsoever but can't stop bashing it...Stepmothers...sigh...

Coldly Connected

Whoa, this book is pretty crazy. I was pleasantly surprised to find each slice of the overall book to be quite short, but packed with worthwhile thoughts and insights. Shaviro has taken a book that could easily be put together as any normal codex would and flipped it, maybe even mirroring hypertext or at least non-linear reading, as you can pretty much flip to any segment and are presented with a quick intro, body and conclusion. In fact, his writing style constantly reminds me of the act of blogging. Forming thoughts into mini-essays that can be quick to read but supply enough information (if you're good) to keep the reader engaged. Thumbs up to this style of writing for those of us with no attention span.

Reading through the early chapters of the book, Shaviro clears up the definition of hot and cold media in a way that McCluhan could not. Back to the whole hot Film vs. cold TV, it now is applicable to my daily encounters with both mediums, as the theatre setting requires you to lose yourself in the film and keep some sort of movie theatre etiquette, while at home the causal style of choosing your entertainment on TV creates a sense of informality where the user is free to interact on some level with the medium, but on a more conscious level.

Now Shaviro really sold me with his short passage on the internet being an even cooler medium than television, and his almost poetic description of this made my countless hours of browsing websites seem somewhat more significant, not that they actually were, but it brought to my attention the actual amount of work it takes to engage with the internet. I mean, its no sport, but the multiple actions one must take on to fully take advantage of the internet when laid out the way Shaviro has, makes it seem much more daunting to the technologically-deficient. However, I feel as though the internet is moving away from being such a freezing medium and is headed for the chilly zone that television currently occupies. New technologies that are being integrated into browsers only make it simpler to access your desired content, with histories being automatically brought up while typing in text entry space and tabbed browsing thanks to Mozilla, it is becoming a more simple and passive experience. Plus the future of television and the internet seems to be heading toward a marriage (they're engaged right now), which is going to melt the ice off of the WWW.

Identity

The internet has paved the way for many new and interesting subjects. Above all the commercial, entertaining and downright silly topics the web has brought to many people's attention, the notion of identity has completely been altered through the medium. In McPherson's study about cyber-confederates, the notion of identity is gained, lost and multiplied through a number of factors. Through the many neo-confederate sites, the notion of a virtual-Dixie is realized and contributors and visitors alike are immediately imbued with the identity of neo-confederate, even if they themselves might not use that term. McPherson labels them with that moniker and for all reading her essay and then viewing the sites (or even just viewing the sites alone) and immediately the reader latches onto either McPherson's term of the term given by the site owners themselves. Here we see identity is gained by the contributors and members of the site, as they have chosen to publicly announce their community and all they stand for.

We see an immediate loss of identity for the viewer, or outsider who happens upon a site such as the ones in question. McPherson notes that a headline on one of the sites reads, "Preserving OUR heritage is preserving YOUR heritage." As soon as this statement is read by an outside viewer, they are presented with a choice; to accept this identity temporarily and read on, hoping to find some reasoning from the creators and better understand their position by becoming one of them (either to agree or create a rebuttal), or reject this identity which excludes them from connecting with any of the rest of the argument as according to the creators, it was meant for people of similar background or ideology.

Where as in real life, your identity can slightly change over the course of your life, through physical and racial traits you are constantly regarded as a type of person which YOU can chose to accept or reject, but through which you cannot necessarily convince everyone, the internet enables people not normally able to directly connect with certain communities (and not in a racial sense, but through personality traits, etc. i.e. People would probably think it strange for me to go to a Britney Spears concert, but I could watch a direct feed of her show online) to have the opportunity to discover new thoughts and either become invested in them or fight them. The internet is now a place for anyone to become someone else, either directly through their own persona or through exterior cyber-communal assumptions. Obviously the internet is open to all forms of morality as it isn't regulated, but it is up to the creators and the viewers to discern their own identities, real or not.

Tracing the Decay of documentary

So I just had a few quick thought I wanted to jot down before I forget.
One of the aspects of DBN that could really be used to separate itself from cinema is the simple fact that they can be added to either changing or adding meaning to the entire piece. Scenes can be added to a film, but rarely are because it isn't always in the interest of the director. A piece like Tracing could have new rooms and scene added all the time, growing and expanding the database infinately. This is a liberty that mediums like videogames have tried (like expansion packs and user created mods) but never really gotten the best of.

An idea I had while in class could take serious advantage of the above as well as the documentary format itself. Here goes: So the history channel is best known for its documentary content of WWII. So much so that there are countless shows that all connect on some level through the various theatres of the war, but never really come together. Now imagine a large scale documentary project akin to Tracing except that it brings together all of the documentaries that the History channel has produced on WWII into a retelling of every aspect of the war. I imagine you begin on a large map of the world where you can click on Continents and move into smaller countries and view pieces of footage, stills, sound bytes and hyperlinks that pull the entire war into one cohesive documentary. Want to follow the European theatre? Well do you want to see it from the American side? The British? The Germans? While following that theatre you could click on specific cities and towns and even people involved with battles and planning in every aspect of the war. Find out the origins of the P51 Mustang and from there see what battles it was fought in. Want to know more about a specific General or Lt.? If they were involved with that conflict, they're there to click on and learn more about. This could create endless possibilites and one could finally see the whole picture from all sides. No bias except for user bias. The best part is as new information is found or new documentaries created, they could be added as plug-ins to the overall piece until one day it would be complete. A virtual encyclopedia documentary. Maybe its just me, but I think that would be one of the most interesting ways to learn about a global conflict (hell they could do one about the past twenty years!)

My computer tells me bedtime stories

So database narratives are the new thing, eh? Since when? First i've heard of 'em.
Anderson's article clearly defines database narratives as being interactive. This is where I draw the line. Manovich's Soft Cinema had no traces of interactivitiy to the viewer (notice the use of the word viewer as there is no user because all you do is WATCH). I do like how Anderson has defined DBNs using Randomness, Metadata and Dynamism. I assume he throws dynamism in there to support his use of the term interactive, but to truly be an interactive form of media; I feel there has to be some user input, not just creator. Because Manovich's project was shipped to the public in DVD format, this also severely limits how an average viewer can observe the project because the complete essence of the DBN is lost due to the DVD format. Had this been released as a program, my view of it would be quite different.

Now imagine the same project, but instead of Manovich deciding how to label and organize the database, anyone could have access to it and alter whatever they wished. Now that right there is interactivity. Thus, as Anderson smartly points out, the place where DBN really shine is of course, the world of videogames (once again!). Take for example the infamous Grand Theft Auto. A recreation of a real life working city, complete with taxi services, street cleaning, police chases and violence. Now the narrative of the GTA series really stems from the story that the designers create. That is, a linear narrative that you interact with, but never changes from person to person. While that is all good and fun, if you've ever played a GTA, there is a list of statistics of your overall progress and the linear story narrative usually leaves you at only 40% complete. So the other 60% is left up to you to explore this database of algorithms set to create random interactions. Nobodies GTA experience is ever the same. If you just stop your character on the street corner and watch what goes on around you, you'll witness a plethora of smaller random narratives that you can draw from to create your own stories within this sandbox world. For example, I was playing, stopped to watch a cop chase down a perp on foot, only to have the perp's homies run up and beat the cop down. Then the runner proceeded to get in a cab and drive away from the scene of the crime. An ambulance arrived to resuscitate the cop and life resumed as normal (although a small crowd of pedestrians came over to see what the commotion was all about). To me, the fact that these random DBN can occur right in front of your eyes and that you can in turn interpret them and actually create your own narrative from them in which you can then participate (i.e. you could chase down the perp in the cab and get revenge for beating down officer Bob) is nothing short of astounding. To me, that is the perfect direction for DBNs to go (and not necessarily in a violent manner) and it seems that Anderson would agree.

I hate new media

Well, at least for now. New Media is so great for so many different uses as it is so easy to manipulate and create new meaning from many sources. However, as of last night i've decided I hate new media. Here's the story: So i'm taking an Advanced Editing course up at Pitzer (Feels more like beginning) and our current assignment is to find a scene from an American film and re-edit that scene to give it new meaning. Simple enough? Sure, actually not such a bad project (you should check THIS out to see how you can really change the meaning of a film through editing). Well the scene we decided to use was from the 1979 cult classic The Warriors (check it out, cool movie) and considering this film isn't so well known, we were lucky to find that the new director's cut was recently released on DVD to coincide with the release of The Warriors videogame. Now, maybe I wouldn't hate new media so much if Pitzer would just step up their media labs, but the rediculous amount of trouble me and my group went through just to transcode this ten minute scene from DVD to a format manageable by Final Cut Pro was unbelievable. AVIs, MPEGs, DVs, we tried 'em all to no avail. For over four hours we tried every imagineable way to get this scene on the computer. Editing the piece wouldn't have taken more than two hours, but all our time and energy was spent trying to transcode a bunch of binary code...sweet.

The first film I made I had to edit on a Steenbeck which is this really old editing machine where you actually physically cut and paste the celluloid together. While it was cool at first, it quickly became tedious and even painful as the razors to cut the film were really sharp. Now, looking back at that experience, I realized that in four hours, had I had the scene we needed on film and a steenbeck we could have finished the project easily. New Media has kicked our asses and now we're handing this project in a week late...thanks new media.

I guess it makes sense, I mean, with all the pirateing going on these days. But we bought the DVD, why can't we do what we want with it? We're not going to sell it or anything...well I know its not worth arguing about, but if anyone knows how to successfully get a copywrited DVD onto Final Cut please let me know because I can't for the life of me get this to work. Sometimes I feel so on top of current media and in cases like now I feel completely alienated.